4 ms·

I read somewhere that some nuclear ware strategists considered a 30-40% global fatality rate an acceptable outcome of nuclear war, which lead to the idea of str

I read somewhere that some nuclear ware strategists considered a 30-40% global fatality rate an acceptable outcome of nuclear war, which lead to the idea of strike first being ok. I hate to think what an advanced AI would do if it thinks the best things for humanity is less humans. An anti-natalist AI with nukes is not a good thing.

the_third_wave 5y ago
There is no need for an AI to come up with such a sentiment, there are plenty of people who see humans as a plague on the earth which it is better off without. The chance of some of these people triggering a nuclear exchange far exceeds the change of some future W.O.P.R. [1] getting the world into a conflict. [1] https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html
- forgetfulness 5y ago
  I think you're just taking general feelings of frustration for humanity's short-sightnedness a tad too seriously, I've yet to see any group wanting to organize the demise of humanity based on what usually drives those sentiments, like the destruction of nature or cruelty towards animals and humans, in comparison to, say... Religious people making decisions with far-reaching consequences based on their religion's eschatology.
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    I'm not so much thinking of people who want to totally eradicate humanity - these do exist [1] but they'll find it hard to gain enough adherents to get themselves in the position to trigger a nuclear exchange. The people I'm thinking of are those who'd like to see the world population reduced to what they consider to be a 'sustainable' level - neo-Malthusianists, radical Ecrocritics, etc. As you mentioned above there are also those who'd like to 'immanentise the eschaton' driven by religious zeal, e.g. Islamic State awaited the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, would initiate the countdown to the apocalypse [2]. They did not succeed but the recent fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban might spell trouble for neighbouring Pakistan - a nuclear power - where the intelligence service ISI is suspected of being more loyal to extremists than to the Pakistani government [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-is... [3] search for 'Pakistan ISI extremists' or something similar
arethuza 5y ago
For the early 1960s according to Daniel Ellsberg: "The total death toll as calculated by the Joint Chiefs, from a U.S. first strike aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, would be roughly 600 million dead. A hundred Holocausts" 600 million was known at the time to be an underestimate and then add in what the Soviets would have done then over a billion is probably realistic. World population at the time was about 3 billion. Edit: Worth noting that this US strike would have killed about 100 million in Western Europe.

the_third_wave 5y ago

There is no need for an AI to come up with such a sentiment, there are plenty of people who see humans as a plague on the earth which it is better off without. The chance of some of these people triggering a nuclear exchange far exceeds the change of some future W.O.P.R. [1] getting the world into a conflict. [1] https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html

forgetfulness 5y ago
I think you're just taking general feelings of frustration for humanity's short-sightnedness a tad too seriously, I've yet to see any group wanting to organize the demise of humanity based on what usually drives those sentiments, like the destruction of nature or cruelty towards animals and humans, in comparison to, say... Religious people making decisions with far-reaching consequences based on their religion's eschatology.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  I'm not so much thinking of people who want to totally eradicate humanity - these do exist [1] but they'll find it hard to gain enough adherents to get themselves in the position to trigger a nuclear exchange. The people I'm thinking of are those who'd like to see the world population reduced to what they consider to be a 'sustainable' level - neo-Malthusianists, radical Ecrocritics, etc. As you mentioned above there are also those who'd like to 'immanentise the eschaton' driven by religious zeal, e.g. Islamic State awaited the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, would initiate the countdown to the apocalypse [2]. They did not succeed but the recent fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban might spell trouble for neighbouring Pakistan - a nuclear power - where the intelligence service ISI is suspected of being more loyal to extremists than to the Pakistani government [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-is... [3] search for 'Pakistan ISI extremists' or something similar

arethuza 5y ago

For the early 1960s according to Daniel Ellsberg: "The total death toll as calculated by the Joint Chiefs, from a U.S. first strike aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, would be roughly 600 million dead. A hundred Holocausts" 600 million was known at the time to be an underestimate and then add in what the Soviets would have done then over a billion is probably realistic. World population at the time was about 3 billion. Edit: Worth noting that this US strike would have killed about 100 million in Western Europe.